Why the US and Israel need marriage counseling before Iran negotiations go further - opinion

Of the many thinkers who shaped my understanding of international politics, one principle always stood out: nations ultimately act in their own interests. Alliances exist, partnerships flourish, and shared values matter, but when pressure rises, national interests prevail. Alliances, therefore, are not built on altruism. They are built on what might best be called mutual shared self-interest.

And like many long marriages, it occasionally needs counseling.

Alliances resemble marriages in more ways than most diplomats would admit. When two countries fight wars together, develop weapons systems together, share intelligence daily, and coordinate politically across decades, they develop something similar to a family bond. Alliances, wars, and shared sacrifices create a similar bond between nations.

But marriages are not simple. A marriage is a constant balancing act between acting as one unit while still maintaining individual needs, interests, and identities. That balancing act becomes especially difficult during times of stress, crisis, or conflict. The same is true for alliances.

Healthy marriages are based on communication, trust, and equality of respect – even when the partners are not equal in size or power. In the US-Israel relationship, America is clearly the senior partner. Israel understands this. But like any marriage, even when one partner is stronger, the relationship only works when both partners feel heard, respected, and understood.

That is why communication – open, honest, and strategic communication – is the most important element of both marriages and alliances.

One of the most important lessons in marriage counseling is that the goal is not to be right. The goal is to aspire to stay committed and move forward together. That requires empathy, long-term thinking, and sometimes saying less publicly and more privately.

This is particularly relevant when looking at the leadership styles of the current American and Israeli leadership. American presidents often speak one way publicly and negotiate differently privately. This is part of managing global power, domestic politics, economic markets, and international coalitions simultaneously. Israeli leaders, meanwhile, must balance American expectations, Israeli security needs, and intense domestic political opposition.

This creates a constant risk that the two countries drift out of sync – not because they disagree strategically, but because their political realities are different. And this is exactly what may happen as negotiations with Iran continue.

The United States and Israel are fighting the same enemy, but they are not fighting the same war.

For Israel, the stakes are existential.

For the United States, the stakes are strategic, economic, and geopolitical – but not existential.

This difference matters enormously.

In chess terms, Iran understands that if you are playing with a clock, you do not always need to win on the board. Sometimes you just need to run out your opponent’s time.

This is where the interests of Israel and the United States may begin to diverge – not in their ultimate goals, but in how much each side is willing to pay, how long each side is willing to fight, and what each side considers victory. This is exactly the type of moment when marriages run into trouble.

If the United States reaches a negotiated arrangement with Iran and declares victory, but Israel believes the Iranian nuclear and regional threat still fundamentally exists, then the alliance enters a very dangerous phase.

Not because the countries become enemies.

Not because the alliance collapses.

But because expectations diverge.

One partner believes the problem is solved.

The other partner believes the problem is only paused.

In marriages, this is called a difference in expectations.

In alliances, this is called a strategic divergence.

Both are dangerous if not addressed early.

Marriage counseling does not exist only because marriages are failing. Marriage counseling aspires to prevent marriages from failing. It allows two partners with different perspectives, different pressures, and different fears to speak honestly and align expectations before disagreements become crises.

This is exactly what the United States and Israel need now – not publicly, but privately, strategically, and honestly.

They need to answer several difficult questions together:

• What does victory against Iran actually mean?

• What is an acceptable Iranian nuclear capability?

• What regional proxy activity is acceptable or unacceptable?

• How long is the United States willing to remain engaged?

• What actions would Israel take independently if negotiations fail?

• What actions would Israel take if negotiations succeed but Iran continues regional aggression?

• What price is each country willing to pay for its definition of victory?

These are not military questions.

They are not diplomatic questions.

They are alliance management questions.

Or to put it more simply: they are marriage counseling questions.

History shows that alliances rarely collapse because of enemies. They collapse because partners stop understanding each other’s interests, pressures, and timelines.

The most dangerous moment in an alliance is not when missiles are flying.

The most dangerous moment is when partners quietly begin planning different endgames.

This is why strategic communication between Washington and Jerusalem in the coming weeks may be more important than any military operation or negotiation document. Because the real question is not whether America and Israel are allies. They will remain allies.

The real question is whether they will continue to move in the same strategic direction once negotiations with Iran move forward.

Strong marriages are not the ones that never argue. Strong marriages are the ones where both sides understand that, despite disagreements, their future is still shared.

The United States and Israel are not just allies of convenience. They are strategic partners whose security, technology, intelligence, and geopolitical interests are deeply intertwined.

But like any long relationship, they must constantly revisit expectations, responsibilities, risks, and goals.

That is why, before the Iran negotiations go much further, Washington and Jerusalem do not just need more intelligence sharing, more military coordination, or more diplomatic meetings.

They need something simpler and more difficult at the same time.

They need an honest strategic conversation about their future, their expectations, and their red lines.

In other words, they may need marriage counseling.

Because the goal is not to be right.

The goal is to move forward together.